End WhatsApp use, remove micro observers: Bengal to seek changes in SIR process
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria, is scheduled to hear a batch of petitions, including the one filed by the Chief Minister herself.
The Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government is set to press a series of demands before the Supreme Court on Monday, challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state. The issue has become the bone of contention between the Trinamool government and the Centre ahead of the West Bengal polls.
Sources told India Today that the Trinamool has argued that the ongoing exercise risks large-scale disenfranchisement and lacks transparency, alleging that West Bengal has been unfairly singled out ahead of elections.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria, is scheduled to hear a batch of petitions, including the one filed by the Chief Minister herself.
BENGAL GOVERNMENT’S KEY DEMANDS
At the heart of the state’s strategy is a call to overhaul the manner in which the SIR is being conducted.
The Mamata Banerjee government is seeking an end to the use of WhatsApp for official communication, insisting that all instructions must be issued on official letterhead with proper memo numbers and dates, and uploaded on the ECI’s website to ensure accountability.
Banerjee has repeatedly criticised what she terms the "WhatsApp Commission", questioning both the legality and transparency of informal digital directives.
Another key demand relates to the role of micro observers. The state has asked for their complete removal from the SIR process, proposing instead a panel of 8,505 Group B officers identified by the government.
A district-wise list of these officers has already been shared with the ECI.
The Trinamool government is also seeking the annulment of decisions taken by micro observers in cases of disagreement, arguing that the final authority should rest with the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) or Assistant ERO.
Alternatively, any objections raised by micro observers should be referred back to these statutory officers for a final call.
The state has further urged the court to ensure that no voter is deleted solely on the basis of name mismatches, warning that minor discrepancies are being used to issue notices and strike names off electoral rolls.
It has also sought immediate acceptance of all cases earlier rejected due to submission of permanent residence certificates, noting that the ECI has since recognised these documents as valid.
In addition, West Bengal wants house allotment sanction letters to be treated as primary documentary evidence, pointing out that such documents were accepted during similar exercises in Bihar.
Banerjee has maintained that the SIR’s pace and scope are unjustified, asking why an exercise conducted after decades is being rushed through in a matter of months.
She has alleged that voters listed in the 2022 rolls are being targeted, despite the Supreme Court earlier directing that the process must be transparent and not inconvenience citizens.
MAMATA BANERJEE’S COURT APPEARANCE QUESTIONED
An application has been filed in the Supreme Court alleging that Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s personal appearance in the SIR matter was "constitutionally improper" and "legally untenable".
Filed by Satish Kumar Aggarwal, former vice president of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, the application seeks to intervene in Banerjee’s petition challenging the SIR.
The application argues that the issue at hand is not a personal dispute but one of state governance and the constitutional powers of the Election Commission.
As such, it contends that Banerjee, as the incumbent chief minister, could not appear in a personal capacity when the state is already represented by appointed counsel.
It further states that such personal appearances by sitting chief ministers are institutionally undesirable and contrary to established judicial conventions, especially when professional legal representation is in place.
On February 4, Banerjee became the first serving chief minister to argue before the top court, urging it to intervene to “save democracy” and alleging that West Bengal was being targeted.
The Supreme Court subsequently issued notices to the ECI and the state’s chief electoral officer, seeking replies by February 9.
The Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government is set to press a series of demands before the Supreme Court on Monday, challenging the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state. The issue has become the bone of contention between the Trinamool government and the Centre ahead of the West Bengal polls.
Sources told India Today that the Trinamool has argued that the ongoing exercise risks large-scale disenfranchisement and lacks transparency, alleging that West Bengal has been unfairly singled out ahead of elections.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria, is scheduled to hear a batch of petitions, including the one filed by the Chief Minister herself.
BENGAL GOVERNMENT’S KEY DEMANDS
At the heart of the state’s strategy is a call to overhaul the manner in which the SIR is being conducted.
The Mamata Banerjee government is seeking an end to the use of WhatsApp for official communication, insisting that all instructions must be issued on official letterhead with proper memo numbers and dates, and uploaded on the ECI’s website to ensure accountability.
Banerjee has repeatedly criticised what she terms the "WhatsApp Commission", questioning both the legality and transparency of informal digital directives.
Another key demand relates to the role of micro observers. The state has asked for their complete removal from the SIR process, proposing instead a panel of 8,505 Group B officers identified by the government.
A district-wise list of these officers has already been shared with the ECI.
The Trinamool government is also seeking the annulment of decisions taken by micro observers in cases of disagreement, arguing that the final authority should rest with the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) or Assistant ERO.
Alternatively, any objections raised by micro observers should be referred back to these statutory officers for a final call.
The state has further urged the court to ensure that no voter is deleted solely on the basis of name mismatches, warning that minor discrepancies are being used to issue notices and strike names off electoral rolls.
It has also sought immediate acceptance of all cases earlier rejected due to submission of permanent residence certificates, noting that the ECI has since recognised these documents as valid.
In addition, West Bengal wants house allotment sanction letters to be treated as primary documentary evidence, pointing out that such documents were accepted during similar exercises in Bihar.
Banerjee has maintained that the SIR’s pace and scope are unjustified, asking why an exercise conducted after decades is being rushed through in a matter of months.
She has alleged that voters listed in the 2022 rolls are being targeted, despite the Supreme Court earlier directing that the process must be transparent and not inconvenience citizens.
MAMATA BANERJEE’S COURT APPEARANCE QUESTIONED
An application has been filed in the Supreme Court alleging that Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s personal appearance in the SIR matter was "constitutionally improper" and "legally untenable".
Filed by Satish Kumar Aggarwal, former vice president of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, the application seeks to intervene in Banerjee’s petition challenging the SIR.
The application argues that the issue at hand is not a personal dispute but one of state governance and the constitutional powers of the Election Commission.
As such, it contends that Banerjee, as the incumbent chief minister, could not appear in a personal capacity when the state is already represented by appointed counsel.
It further states that such personal appearances by sitting chief ministers are institutionally undesirable and contrary to established judicial conventions, especially when professional legal representation is in place.
On February 4, Banerjee became the first serving chief minister to argue before the top court, urging it to intervene to “save democracy” and alleging that West Bengal was being targeted.
The Supreme Court subsequently issued notices to the ECI and the state’s chief electoral officer, seeking replies by February 9.